Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

An algorithm for longitudinal differential protection of transmission

lines
Tomislav Rajić ⇑, Zoran Stojanović
University of Belgrade-School of Electrical Engineering, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, Belgrade 11000, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes a new algorithm for longitudinal differential protection of transmission lines. Classic
Received 9 March 2017 stabilization is an unreliable method for avoiding unnecessary relay tripping in case of current trans-
Received in revised form 27 June 2017 former saturation during faults outside the protected zone. There are various methods for detecting cur-
Accepted 5 July 2017
rent transformer saturation. The paper’s thesis is that rather than the stabilization current, the direction
Available online 29 July 2017
of the currents introduced into the relay should be monitored. The proposed algorithm has been com-
pared to the algorithms used by renowned relay producers. Different types of faults have been simulated,
Keywords:
both within and outside of the protected zone, and the paper demonstrates how the relay trips when the
Differential relay
Transmission line
algorithm in question is used. The results have proven that current transformer saturation does not affect
Power system protection protection operation, and that a prompt relay response is obtained for faults occurring within the pro-
tected zone.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Analogue longitudinal differential protection is used for shorter,
single-circuit transmission lines in double-fed networks. If optical
ground wires (OPGW) are used, the length of the line ceases to be a
limiting factor. The longitudinal differential protection principle is
based on the comparison of the currents located at the beginning
and at the end of the line, resulting in a quick, sensitive and simple
protection concept that ensures that the faulted line is discon-
nected from the network. The protected zone is defined by the
position of the current transformers from which signals are
brought into the differential relay [1–3].
There are two types of algorithms for differential protection:
those that use phasors [4–6] and those that use instantaneous val-
ues of electrical quantities [7]. In addition to the classic approach,
which uses current signals exclusively, there are solutions which
require voltage inputs [8–10] too.
The major problem related to differential protection operation
is current transformer saturation [11]. Namely, during a fault
located outside the protected zone (external fault), high fault cur-
rents can saturate current transformers. If the characteristics of the
current transformers set at the opposite ends of the line are not
identical, a high differential current starts flowing through the
relay. This current may cause unnecessary relay tripping. There
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rajic@etf.rs (T. Rajić).
are various methods that can prevent such occurrences. The
leading relay protection manufacturers offer different solutions
[3,12–15].
The study presented in this paper is based on the idea that a
current direction indicator should be used instead of the stabiliza-
tion current. The direction indicator is defined by the phase com-
parison illustrated in [16–18], using the currents brought from
either end of the line. The procedure described in the paper was
compared to the conventional solutions which have been imple-
mented in practice. An advantage of the proposed approach is a
prompter response with a minimum of mathematical operations.
What is more, the algorithm is insensitive to current transformer
saturation.
2. Classic approach
Fig. 1 shows the longitudinal differential protection operating
principle and the tripping characteristic of the differential relay.
If the fault occurs outside of the protected zone, the left and
right-end currents have the same direction and approximate inten-
sities, i.e. their difference is negligible and the protection does not
trip. Should the fault occur within the protected zone (internal
fault), the right-end’s current changes its direction, establishing a
significant current through the differential relay M, causing its
tripping.
The minimum tripping current (Imin) defines the minimum relay
tripping threshold and is set to 20–50% of the rated transformer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.07.001
0142-0615/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286
Fig. 1. Longitudinal differential protection of transmission lines. (a) Longitudinal differential protection operating principle. (b) Relay tripping characteristic.
current. This quantity is defined since in an actual system, in a non-
fault condition, there is always a difference between the currents
measured at the opposite line ends due to the current transform-
ers’ imperfection and the charging current [1–3].
The relay trips if the operating point, defined by the differential
and stabilization currents’ RMS values, is located within the relay
tripping area (Fig. 1b).
3. Existing algorithms
In a classic longitudinal differential protection algorithm, a
problem may occur in case of current transformer saturation due
to a fault outside the protected zone. This phenomenon leads to
unnecessary relay protection tripping. The leading relay protection
manufacturers have different methods for tackling this problem.
What follows is an overview of principles based on additional sta-
bilization and the negative sequence current component.
3.1. Additional stabilization principle
The Siemens corporation uses conventional differential protec-
tion logic, supplemented by the additional stabilization principle.
Eqs. (1) and (2) are used for calculating the stabilization and dif-
ferential currents, for each phase individually [3,12]:
Istab ¼ jIL j þ jIR j
Idiff ¼ jIL  IR j
with the following explanation:
IL – basic harmonic phasor of the left-end phase current,
IR – basic harmonic phasor of the right-end phase current.
Fig. 2 shows the typical operating points depending on fault
position (either within or outside the protected zone). The operat-
ing point is defined by the RMS values of the differential and stabi-
lization relay currents. Point A corresponds to the non-fault
operating condition. Should the fault occur within the protected
zone – in the middle of the line, for example – the differential
and stabilization currents become virtually identical. The new
operating point will be located on the line forming a 45° angle with
the abscissa axis. This line is represented as the dash-dot-dash line,
whereas the new operating point is marked by the letter D. In such
a setting, the relay operates properly [3,12,13].
The dashed line in Fig. 2 illustrates the movement of the oper-
ating point during a fault outside the protected zone, when current
transformers are saturated. Soon after the fault occurs, the operat-
ing point moves to position B. Only then does the operating point
move to position C, located within the relay tripping area. The relay
detects this trajectory and blocks if it registers that the operating
277
point first moved into the additional stabilization zone, and after-
wards reached the protection tripping zone. The relay block ceases
after a set time delay (of several basic periods) or when the mea-
sured differential current drops below the tripping current
[3,12,13].
A problem may occur when current transformers are saturated
with the alternating current component during a fault outside the
protected zone. This may be the cause of unnecessary relay trip-
ping, since the relay block ceases after a set time delay, while the
relay remains active due to the saturation with the alternating
component of the fault current.
3.2. Negative sequence component principle
In order to prevent unnecessary relay tripping during faults out-
side the protected zone, ABB’s relays use the negative sequence
component principle as a supplement to the classic approach to
differential protection.
The differential current is calculated according to Eq. (2), indi-
vidually for each phase, while the universal stabilization current
(the stabilization current for all phases) is taken to be the maxi-
mum value of all the phase currents which are brought into the
relay from both ends of the line [14,15]:
n o
Istab ¼ max ILA ; IRA ; IBL ; IBR ; ICL ; ICR ð3Þ
ð1Þ
The negative sequence component principle presupposes that
ð2Þ by the isolation of this component we may determine whether
the fault is located within or outside the protected zone.
The relay simultaneously performs multiple checks. The first-
line check is an instance of classic differential protection, operating
according to the principle of calculating the differential and stabi-
lization currents. The second-line analysis is the isolation of the
second and fifth harmonics; however, this function is inactive in
most cases. The third-line and the most important analysis in
terms of unnecessary relay tripping is based on the negative
sequence component. The analysis is based on the comparison of
negative sequence currents obtained from both ends of the trans-
mission line. If the phase difference between these two currents
is larger than 60°, it is assumed that the fault occurred within
the protected zone, and a signal for breaker activation is sent.
Otherwise, the signal will not be sent. To secure a proper reaction,
the modules of the negative sequence components need to exceed
the minimum set value. Usually the minimum value equals 4% of
the base value (Ibase). The secondary rate current of the current
transformers is taken as the base value. If Istab exceeds 150% of
the base value, the minimum value is the sum of 0.04  Ibase + 0.1 -
 Istab. If at least one negative sequence component per module is
lower than the set component, the relay ignores the third-line
analysis. The relay trips if the results of all the analyses indicate
278 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286
Fig. 2. Differential protection with additional stabilization tripping characteristic.
that the fault occurred within the protected zone, which may
sometimes cause the relay to trip after an additional delay of
6 ms [14,15].
Given the fact that the method is based on the negative
sequence component, unnecessary protection tripping can occur
during a three-phase short circuit outside the protected zone if
the current transformers are heavily saturated.
4. The proposed algorithm
The new approach to longitudinal differential protection uses
two quantities: the RMS value of the differential current (Idiff)
and the current direction indicator (IND).
In every sampling instant, current signal samples are brought
into the relay from both the left line-end (iL) and the right line-
end (iR). The instantaneous value of the differential current (idiff)
is calculated as the difference between these two samples, whereas
the instantaneous value of the direction indicator (ind) is their pro-
duct, as shown by Eqs. (4) and (5):
idiff ¼ iL  iR
ind ¼ iL  iR
It is necessary to form six buffers for this algorithm, two per
each phase. One buffer holds samples of the differential current’s
instantaneous values, whereas the other buffer holds the current
direction indicator’s values. The reading of a new sample leads to
a shift in the buffers, so that the first element of the buffer (the old-
est sample) is deleted, while the new sample takes the last posi-
tion. The buffer content is taken as the basis for calculating the
differential current RMS value and the mean value of the direction
indicator. The calculation method for these quantities is repre-
sented by Eqs. (6) and (7):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2 brought into the relay from one line-end equals zero, which means
n¼1 idiff ðnÞ
Idiff ¼ ð6Þ
m
Pm
n¼1 indðnÞ
IND ¼
m
with the following explanation:
idiff – the nth differential current sample,
ind – the nth current direction indicator sample,
m – the number of samples in the basic T signal period, i.e. in
the data window (m = T/Tod = 20).
Using RMS and mean values instead of instantaneous values
prevents false relay tripping due to interference, noise, transients
during the fault, etc. The relay trips when both conditions, repre-
sented by Eqs. (8) and (9), are met:
Idiff > Imin ð8Þ
IND 6 0 ð9Þ
The condition represented by (8) means that the differential
current RMS value must exceed the current which defines the min-
imum relay tripping threshold. The minimum tripping current
(Imin) depends on several factors. The most influential factor is
the capacitive charging current, which can be estimated on the
basis of operational capacitance [13]:
2p
IC ¼ pffiffiffi  U n  f n  cd  L  106 ð10Þ
3
where:
Ic – capacitive charging current (A),
Un – rated network voltage (kV),
ð4Þ fn – rated frequency (Hz),
cd – longitudinal operational capacitance (nF/km),
ð5Þ L – line length (km).
This accounts for prompter tripping, since the relay practically
operates as an overcurrent protection with a defined tripping cur-
rent. Unnecessary tripping during a fault outside the protected
zone is avoided due to the condition (9). This is explained by the
fact that the currents brought into the relay from the opposite ends
of the line have the same direction in a non-fault condition or dur-
ing a fault outside the protected zone, while they have opposite
directions if the fault occurred within the protected zone. In the
former case, IND has a positive value, while it has a negative value
in the latter case. In Eq. (9), the symbol  is used if the current
that the transmission line is operating in idle regime.
5. Results
ð7Þ
The 110 kV transmission line model used for testing the algo-
rithm was formed using the Matlab/Simulink software package, as
illustrated in Fig. 3a. The longitudinal line parameters are the fol-
lowing: rd = 0.12 O/km, ld = 1.3 mH/km and cd = 8.9 nF/km, while
the longitudinal zero-sequence line parameters are: ro = 0.32 O/
km, lo = 4.1 mH/km and co = 5 nF/km. The length of the line is set
 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286 279

Fig. 3. A model for testing longitudinal differential protection of transmission lines. (a) Transmission line with current transformers model. (b) Left-end (L) and right-end (R)
current transformer magnetizing characteristics.

Fig. 4. Transformers’ secondary currents in phase A and the quantities calculated by the Siemens’ algorithm during an external fault. (a) Left-end (iL) and right-end (iR)
secondary transformer currents in phase A. (b) Differential current (Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip). (c) Stabilization current (Istab) and differential current (Idiff).

to L = 60 km. Active networks are found at both line-ends, their
three-phase short circuit power being 5000 MVA, whereas the
reactance/resistance ratio is X/R = 10 [19,20].
In this model, the relay was implemented using the Matlab func-
tion block. Current signals from all the phases and both line-ends
are brought to the block input. The sampling period Ts is set to
1 ms. When the conditions for tripping are met, the block triggers
the control inputs of the circuit breakers and opens them. The
same block was used for all three algorithms, allowing for a com-
parative analysis.
Current transformer models were formed on both sides of the
protected line, bearing the following characteristics: transmission
ratio 100/1 A/A, apparent power 10 VA, complex error 10 and accu-
racy limit factor 10 (10P10). For simplicity’s sake, a linear magne-
tizing characteristic was implemented (Fig. 3b). The first part of the
characteristic corresponds to a 10% error, made by the current
transformer in case of primary currents up to 10In. In case of a cur-
rent exceeding 10In, the transformers become saturated and leave
the defined class of accuracy. The second part of the characteristic
is not defined identically for the left-end and right-end current
280 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286

Fig. 5. Quantities calculated by ABB’s algorithm during an external fault. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip). (b) Negative sequence component
modules at both ends (INegSeqL and INegSeqR) and minimum value (IMINNegSeq). (c) Angle difference between negative sequence component phasors (delta) and set boundary
(boundary).

Fig. 6. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during an external fault. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and
minimum tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

transformers. The second part of the left-end current transformer
characteristic more or less corresponds to the horizontal semi-
straight line. The right-end current transformer characteristic devi-
ates from the continuation of the first part of the characteristic by
15°.
A 10 X resistive load is found on the secondary side of all cur-
rent transformers, which takes into account the relay impedance
and the secondary connections’ resistance. Such a load was chosen
in order to simulate current transformer saturation with both the
direct component of the fault current and its alternating compo-
nent once the direct component has been damped [11].
Due to the variation in the voltage and frequency values, as well
as the different magnetizing characteristics of the current trans-
formers, the set value should be approximately twice as large as
the calculated capacitive charging current Ic. In the observed over-
head transmission line (Un = 110 kV, L = 60 km), Ic is 10.6 A (sec-
ondary 0.106 A). Therefore, the relay tripping threshold of 0.2 A
(20% of the rated secondary current, Irs = 1 A) meets the aforemen-
tioned criterion.
The formed model was used to simulate various faults. For clar-
ity’s sake, all figures show only the currents and the relevant quan-
tities of phase A. The fault instant in all the simulations is t = 0.04 s.
This instant enables the highest value of the DC fault current com-
ponent in phase A.
5.1. Faults outside the protected zone
The presented network model was used for simulations.
It was observed how algorithms operate when a fault occurs
outside the protected zone, with the simultaneous saturation of
current transformers at both line-ends. Being the most critical
one, the three-phase short circuit located just after the right-end
current transformers was observed, as it generates the highest
fault currents with a low negative sequence current component.
Fig. 4a illustrates the instantaneous values of the secondary trans-
former currents that are brought to the relay. Due to the different
core characteristics of the current transformers at opposite line
ends, the secondary current is more distorted at the left end.
5.1.1. Additional stabilization principle
Fig. 4b and c shows the stabilization current (Istab), the differen-
tial current (Idiff) and the differential tripping current (Itrip). The dif-
ferential tripping current represents the relay tripping
characteristic in Fig. 2. The relay reacts when the RMS value of
the differential current exceeds the RMS value of the differential
tripping current.
From Fig. 4b it can be seen that in the instant t = 0.048 s the dif-
ferential current exceeds the differential tripping current, although
the fault occurred outside the protected zone, when the relay is not
 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286 281

Table 1 expected to trip. However, Fig. 4c shows that when the stabiliza-
Fault types. tion current (Istab) becomes significantly high (over 7In), which
Fault number Fault type Fault position [%]a Faulted phases happens in the instant t = 0.043 s, the differential current remains
Fault 1 Two-phase-to-earth 20 A and B low for a while. This means that the relay blocking condition is ful-
Fault 2 Single phase 50 A filled whenever additional stabilization principle is used. This
Fault 3 Two-phase 80 A and C instant corresponds to the operating point B in Fig. 2. Even though
a
Line length percentage viewed from the left hand-side.
the differential current in the instant t = 0.067 s drops below the
differential tripping current, in 33 ms the differential current will
again exceed the differential tripping current and remain higher

Fig. 7. Relevant quantities in phase A during Fault 1 (Siemens and ABB). (a) Differential current (Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-Siemens. (b) Differential current
(Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-ABB. (c) Negative sequence component modules at both ends (INegSeqL and INegSeqR) and minimum value (IMINNegSeq)-ABB. (d) Angle
difference between negative sequence component phasors (delta) and set boundary (boundary)-ABB.

Fig. 8. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 1. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum tripping
current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).
282 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286

Fig. 9. Relevant quantities in phase A during Fault 2 (Siemens and ABB). (a) Differential current (Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-Siemens. (b) Differential current
(Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-ABB. (c) Negative sequence component modules at both ends (INegSeqL and INegSeqR) and minimum value (IMINNegSeq)-ABB. (d) Angle
difference between negative sequence component phasors (delta) and set boundary (boundary)-ABB.

Fig. 10. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 2. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

from then on. This is explained by the fact that the current trans-
formers remain saturated even after the fault current’s direct com-
ponent is absent. It can be concluded that a relay that uses
additional stabilization will remain active after the blocking time
period, thus causing unnecessary tripping.
5.1.2. Negative sequence current component principle
Fig. 5 presents simulation results when a negative sequence
current component system is used. Fig. 5a shows that the differen-
tial current value exceeds the differential tripping current in the
instant t = 0.048 s. The negative sequence components on the left
(I NegSeqL ) and right (I NegSeqR ) sides of the line exceed the minimum
value (IMINNegSeq) during two time intervals: 0.043–0.052 s and
0.054–0.057 s (Fig. 5b). During other time intervals, at least one
of the two negative sequence components per module is lower
than IMINNegSeq, so there will be no phase angle comparison.
Fig. 5c illustrates the temporal change of the phase shift (delta)
of the I NegSeqL and I NegSeqR . During the 0.48–0.54 s time interval,
the phase angle difference exceeds the set boundary of 60°. It
can be concluded that in the instant t = 0.48 s the negative
sequence component protection will generate a tripping signal
and unnecessarily switch off the line, as the negative sequence
components will exceed the minimum, and their phase shift will
be larger than 60°.
 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286 283

Fig. 11. Relevant quantities in phase A during Fault 3 (Siemens and ABB). (a) Differential current (Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-Siemens. (b) Differential current
(Idiff) and differential tripping current (Itrip)-ABB. (c) Negative sequence component modules at both ends (INegSeqL and INegSeqR) and minimum value (IMINNegSeq)-ABB. (d) Angle
difference between negative sequence component phasors (delta) and set boundary (boundary)-ABB.

Fig. 12. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 3. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND) and (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

5.1.3. The new approach

The changes in the differential current’s RMS value and in the
Table 2 direction indicator’s mean value are shown in Fig. 6. For clarity’s
Relay tripping times depending on the choice of algorithm [ms].
sake, in Fig. 6b these quantities are shown over a shorter time
Fault number SIEMENS ABB New algorithm interval. Fig. 6b also features the signal sent to the circuit breaker
Fault 1 4 4 1 (TRIP). It can be seen that the direction indicator is above 0 all the
Fault 2 5 4 2 time, thus blocking protection. Idiff exceeds Imin in the instant
Fault 3 6 7 1 0.045 s. However, protection is already blocked due to the
IND > 0 condition, and the line will not be switched off
unnecessarily.
284 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286

Table 3
Set values of fault resistance, line length, and source power.

Fault Fault Fault resistance Line length 3-Phase short-circuit power on the left side 3-Phase short-circuit power on the right side
number type [X] [km] [MVA] [MVA]
Fault 4 A-G 50 60 5000 5000
Fault 5 ABC 0 150 5000 5000
Fault 6 AC 0 60 5000 200
Fault 7 AB-G 50 150 5000 200

Fig. 13. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 4. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

Fig. 14. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 5. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

5.2. Faults within the protected zone
The aforementioned algorithms were tested for faults within
the protected zone as well. Fault types are given in Table 1. The
faults were simulated at points corresponding to 20%, 50% and
80% of the line’s length.
Fig. 7a presents quantities which the Siemens’s algorithm uses
to test the need for tripping. A fault can be detected after just
4 ms. Fig. 7b–d features the relevant quantities of the ABB’s algo-
rithm. Based on the differential current (Fig. 7b), the first condition
for relay tripping is met 4 ms after the fault occurs. By analyzing
the negative sequence component (Fig. 7c and d) just 1 ms after
the fault, it is detected that the fault is positioned within the pro-
tected zone (the negative sequence modules exceed the minimum
value and the angle between them is larger than 60°). Therefore, it
can be concluded that there is no blocking and that the relay trips
4 ms after the fault.
Fig. 8 shows the quantities used by the new algorithm during
Fault 1. Soon after the fault occurs, the differential current exceeds
Imin, thus fulfilling the first condition for tripping. The direction
indicator becomes negative soon afterwards, and the second condi-
tion is met as well. It takes only 1 ms for the relay to trip.
Similar conditions can be seen in Figs. 9–12, relating to Fault 2
and Fault 3 respectively.
 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286 285

Fig. 15. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 6. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

Fig. 16. Quantities obtained by the new algorithm during Fault 7. (a) Differential current (Idiff) and direction indicator (IND). (b) Differential current (Idiff) and minimum
tripping current (Imin), direction indicator (IND), and the signal sent to the circuit breaker (TRIP).

Table 2 offers a clear overview of relay tripping times during the
aforementioned faults when different algorithms are implemented.
5.3. The influence of fault resistance, line length, and source power
The presented algorithm was tested under the following condi-
tions: big fault resistance, a long overhead line, a strong source at
one end of the line and a weak source at the opposite end. The
other simulation parameters were not altered. Table 3 shows the
set values of fault resistance, line length, and source power.
For a 150 km line, it is necessary to pre-set the minimal tripping
current (Imin). If Eq. (10) is applied, the capacitive charging current
is 26.6 A (secondary 0.266 A). Based on this value, the threshold
was set to 0.4 A, which equals 40% of the rated secondary current.
All fault types were simulated: the single phase fault (Fault 4),
the three-phase fault (Fault 5), the two-phase fault (Fault 6), and
the two-phase-to-earth fault (Fault 7). Faults 4, 5, 6, and 7 were
located at points corresponding to 20%, 50%, 80%, and 50% of the
line length respectively.
The simulation results are shown in Figs. 13–16.
As it can be inferred from the illustrations, the relay successfully
detects the fault in such situations. The relay tripping times were
5 ms, 2 ms, 2 ms, and 2 ms respectively.
When transmission lines are very long, there might be phase
unbalance between the currents that are compared due to the
excessive influence of the capacitive charging current. Conse-
quently, the direction indicator IND may be below zero in a non-
fault condition. Although the protection does not issue a tripping
command in that case, as the condition (8) is not met as well, phase
balance can be easily achieved by introducing sensitivity into the
current buffers, as explained in [16,17].
6. Conclusion
The paper presented an algorithm for longitudinal differential
protection of transmission lines. An electric power model was
formed and various algorithms were tested. Fault positions and
fault types were varied during the testing. The proposed solution
was compared to those used by renowned relay protection manu-
facturers. The results of the simulations have proven that the given
algorithm is completely insensitive to current transformer satura-
tion, which means that there is no unnecessary relay tripping during
an external fault. Compared to the commercial solutions, the new
algorithm is highly competitive in terms of how promptly it trips
during faults within the protected zone. Moreover, another advan-
tage of the proposed algorithm when compared to the solutions
286 T. Rajić, Z. Stojanović / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 94 (2018) 276–286
presented in some recent studies is its prompt response with as few
mathematical operations as possible. The algorithm is simple and
does not require complicated signal processing. The future research
will be aimed at the implementation of the given algorithm in the
protection of double transmission lines, transformers, and
generators.
Acknowledgments
The paper’s authors express their gratitude to the Serbian Min-
istry of Education, Science and Technological Development, under
whose auspices this research was conducted, as part of the Project
III 42009 Intelligent Power Energy Networks.
References
[1] Ðurić M, Stojanović Z. Relay protection. Belgrade: KIZ ‘CENTER’; 2014.
[2] Ðurić M, Terzija V, Radojević Z, et al. Algorithms for digital relaying. Belgrade:
ETA; 2012.
[3] Ziegler G. Numerical differential protection: principles and applications.
second ed. Wiley; 2012. pp. 66–69 and 202–233.
[4] Krishnanand K, Dash P, Naeem M. Detection, classification, and location of
faults in power transmission lines. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2015;67:76–86.
[5] Hosny A, Sood VK. Transformer differential protection with phase angle
difference based inrush restraint. Electric Power Syst Res 2014;115:57–64.
[6] Dambhare S, Soman SA, Chandorkar MC. Adaptive current differential
protection schemes for transmission-line protection. IEEE Trans Power
Delivery 2009;24:1756–62.
[7] Deng X, Yuan R, Li T, et al. Digital differential protection technique of
transmission line using instantaneous active current: theory, simulation and
experiment. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2015;9:996–1005.
[8] Wen M, Chen D, Yin X. An energy differential relay for long transmission lines.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;55:497–502.
[9] Kawady T, Talaab A, Ahmed E. Dynamic performance of the power differential
relay for transmission line protection. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2010;32:390–7.
[10] Aziz MMA, Zobaa AF, Ibrahim DK, et al. Transmission lines differential
protection based on the energy conservation law. Electric Power Syst Res
2008;78:1865–72.
[11] Ajaei FB, Sanaye-Pasand M, Davarpanah M, et al. Compensation of the current-
transformer saturation effects for digital relays. IEEE Trans Power Delivery
2011;26:2531–40.
[12] SIEMENS: Manual – SIPROTEC – differential protection 7UT6x. SIEMENS
Version 4.6; June 2012. p 105–8.
[13] SIEMENS: Manual – SIPROTEC – line differential protection with distance
protection 7SD52/53. SIEMENS Version 4.6. p 102–4.
[14] ABB: Application manual – line differential protection RED670 2.1 IEC. ABB,
Product version 2.1; August 2016. p. 142–8.
[15] ABB: Technical manual – line differential protection RED670 2.0 IEC. ABB,
Product version 2.0; July 2016. p. 150–8.
[16] Stojanovic Z, Djuric M. An algorithm for directional earth-fault relay with no
voltage inputs. Electric Power Syst Res 2013;96:144–9.
[17] Stojanovic Z, Djuric M. The algorithm for directional element without dead
tripping zone based on digital phase comparator. Electric Power Syst Res
2011;81(2):377–83.
[18] Forcan M, Stojanović Z. An algorithm for sensitive directional transverse
differential protection with no voltage inputs. Electric Power Syst Res
2016;137:86–95.
[19] Rajić T, Stojanović Z. Longitudinal differential protection of lines with
automatic reclosing. Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina: INFOTEH; 2015. p.
180–5.
[20] Rajić T, Stojanović Z. Influence of stabilization current on longitudinal
differential protection of transmission lines. Jahorina, Bosnia and
Herzegovina: INFOTEH; 2016. p. 78–83.